Pages of interest

Monday, January 31, 2011

You Reap What You Sow!

By George:

The Middle East is in turmoil. Insidious forces are stirring the emotions of the built-in disenchanted populations. I have been waiting for the past few days to see if the vaunted American mainstream media will figure out what is happening and start reporting the Truth. Since it hasn't happened yet, I will jump in with a short analysis of the situation based on observation and logic. So let's start with naming the responsible party for the unrest.

This current instability in the Middle East was caused by the Liberal leaning electorate in America. What? You can't see the connection? All right, let me back up a bit. The cause of this instability is President Barack Hussein Obama who was elected by the fawning Left. You still don't see the connection? In that case, I'll have to start from the beginning.

With all the mercurial fluctuations of fortunes in the Middle Eastern arena, there were some oases of relative calm. Egypt and Jordan were two of these countries, who even went as far as signing a peace pact with Israel, while Tunisia and Yemen remained sympathetic in the background. These countries also had a close rapport with the United States of America. Though the undercurrent of dissatisfaction was always bubbling below the surface, the semblance of normalcy was maintained by the shadow of the bald eagle. The influence of the Muslim Brotherhood was mitigated by the friendship of the great champion of Democracy.

Then came the American elections that elected Barack Hussein Obama. President Obama boldly took the steering wheel of the Country, and took a sharp left turn. He started his worldwide apology tour even before he took office, and hasn't stopped. He met with world leaders who used to look up to the American President, and started bowing to them. He started courting the world Muslim populace, and to show his sincerity, he started undercutting our only Democratic ally in the region, Israel. All the while his Governmental fiats and demands started the accelerating erosion of the financial health of the Nation. And then came the appearance that, in my opinion, eventually precipitated the current crisis.

On June 4th, 2009, President Obama appeared in Cairo, Egypt to address the Muslim world populace. He spoke with his usual oratory verve, and he impressed the Muslim audience with his sincerity to their cause. His statement of "I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam" was well received by his audience. His discourse on the Arab-Israeli conflict was warmly received, since he sympathized with the Palestinian cause. But the overall impression that remained was not one of strong American resolve, but of peerage of purpose in the Muslim world. Then when he included the Muslim Brotherhood representatives in his meeting schedules, it was then, in my opinion, that the Muslim Brotherhood realized that their best chance for ascendancy was at hand.

The current "demonstrations" in the various Middle Eastern countries were not spontaneous. These were carefully fomented by the Muslim Brotherhood. The signs in English and pictures the demonstrators held up for the news media cameras were not of spur-of-the-moment quality. Then the fact that these demonstrations happened in counties that either had Peace Treaties with Israel or were sympathetic to same, drives home the message that America is no longer respected by the citizenry, and no longer feared by the opposition. While the American Media presented the unruly mobs as "groups seeking Democracy", they will not explain how that drive dovetails with the release of thousands of criminals and terrorists from the jails.

Interestingly, after I had formulated my thoughts on this topic, I read an article in the Jerusalem Post that had the following quote from one of the Cairo demonstrators:

“The USA does not support democracy; they’re supporting Israel, which is like their baby,” said Ahmed, a 26-year-old Cairo resident. “They think Egypt is functional because it’s in favor of their considerations.”

“I don’t care if we have peace [with Israel] or not,” Ahmed continued, echoing the indifference of many demonstrators who don’t have a clear agenda for what they want a future Egypt to look like, as long as it does not include Mubarak. “But will Israel allow us to have a real president? For example, Turkey elected an Islamic government, but it was their choice. Will Israel give us the freedom to make the same choice?” he asked.

Huh? Now Israel controls what happens in the Egyptian government? I wonder where they got these ideas?

So now we have a situation that is swiftly spiraling out of control, with the culmination that will have a major negative reverberation in our country halfway across the globe. (Discussion of the probable resultant chaos will have to wait for a different post.) And to think that these events were set in motion on a November day, over two years ago.

I am positing that the REASON that these disturbances are starting NOW, is because the Islamists are realizing that NOW is the time that the American resolve is weak and they can not only get away with creating havoc, but will probably get the nod from an Islamic leaning President.

With Bush in charge, they would be hesitant to do this, and since the next election could once again bring someone with Foreign Policy backbone, they HAD to do this NOW.

George, I appreciate your clarification, but to suggest that the timing has to do with the presidency or the "strength" of any administration is purest sophistry, and serves to do two things only: 1. cater to the basest of the exceptionalistic, empirialistic, and anti-intellectual base of the American mindset...while insulting the majority of Americans who don't subscribe to that mindset. 2. insults a people who have long been oppressed by a totalitarian regime (put into place by another American president, btw) - and who have had enough.

When we stop interfering in other countries' businesses...when we stop playing the world's watchdogs...then *perhaps* we'll have an opportunity to be truly reflective about the fact that, as a nation, we've become what we fought so hard against in order to *become* a nation. We have become what we despise -- and yet we seem all-too-surprised when other countries react in a less-than-cheerful manner.

Well, I've been reading your blog entries with great interest...and the one on the shooting in Arizona has grabbed my attention (particularly since I'm originally from just south of Tucson) -- and well, I can't say that your conclusions in there are correct, even while a couple of things you note I *do* agree with. *small smile*

Funny thing about being correct - there is no *singular* truth. There is a singular reality - but as many facets to truth as there are people on the planet. I am contemplating if/how I want to reply to that particular entry, since there are different nuances and layers of understanding missing from the entry - at least with respect to understanding people *from* Arizona and why the reaction *there* is so diverse. It's not a simple matter at all...*ponders*

Oh, please don't think I *judge* you, George. :) I disagree with you - but that is not in any way a personal judgment. Please forgive me if I came across as judging *you* in any way. I tend to be brusque at times, and I have a deep love of history. If you'll allow...I need to take my time with any response to the Arizona-shooting blog entry, mostly because that story hit so close to home and my heart.

Does it really make sense that the president is independent and has a free hand in any workings of government. Especially foreign policy? Look at what it takes to get elected.

Also,Did it not take great money, power, and influence to create the state of Israel. Where was that power radiated from, and what personalities "made it happen"?These are very pertinent questions.

"there is no *singular* truth"Isn't that the truth !

And by George I think you've got it."Everyone has opinions, and I allow the broadest discourse because that what America is all about."

Yes, Except, not any more.You are in the minority, now, George.

I recommend a bit of hidden perspective on the U.S presidency by learning about a very powerful, if unknown, personality in history.

Col. Edward Mandell House.

http://www.gemworld.com/EdMandellHouse.htm

there is a fair amount out there on Housesort and weed

Here is the tail end of the post I had intended to leave here a few days ago, but decided against.

But, alasThe Liberal has to show disdain for the Conservative; and Vice-versa.It is the rule of the labels.

The Left-Right Paradigm serves only one real purpose. Divide and conquer.

On the Middle East Perhaps we are witnessing the works of "agent provocateurs" ? Perhaps nothing of consequence on the world stage really happens by accident. Diplomatic cables seem to suggest this.Perhaps we are witnessing the careful creation of a new axis. Turkey - Iran - Egypt - Pakistan and satellites. A new caliphate.

Why did this really happen nowin this way with what catalyst!What gave it traction, modern communications?

Yes, what we see in the Middle East is the Islamists working behind the scene as you put it for "A new caliphate".

Why now? I covered that in the post. WEAK AMERICAN LEADERSHIP.

I checked out your link, and I am skeptical, especially when a private conversation is related verbatim. LOTS of bogus stuff out there on the Internet.

No matter how clueless he is, the President does have a big say in Foreign Policy, especially one as narcissistic as the the current POTUS. (I dare you to refute the narcissistic comment - google Narcissistic personality disorder). By him showing preference for Islam coupled with weak-kneed stance on any security issue or foreign policy matters, the Islamist realized that NOW is the time to strike.

As far as you throwaway comment, I hope we can reclaim this great country BEFORE the current administration is able to muzzle dissenting opinion.

Well, to be fair...I am *extremely* skeptical of the specific quote, unless it can be demonstrated through formalized and validated historical documentation that the verbatim quote is accurate.

That said, House was a VERY crucial figure during that time, and did, in fact, aid Wilson in shaping much of what we see today. From a professor friend of mine: "...He did play a significant role in his administration. However, Wilson was also pretty strong-minded. He had his own vision, which wasn't always the same as House's. Still, House played a major part in shaping the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations." ~ and there are a few pretty incredible historical documentations of that fact ~ a good place to start is here: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2294

I would not dismiss the history out of hand by suggesting that Obama is doing anything other than perpetuating LONG-standing historical precedents.

I appreciate your perspective, but..I thought it was pretty clear that I did not agree with your entire analysis; or conclusions.

WEAK AMERICAN LEADERSHIPweak like a fox/ if the objective is not what one would think, or at all obvious.To help with this, I think it important to learn of the real connections of this admin with Columbia and the SDS / weathermen. There is evidence his first speech circa 1981 was at the invitation of, and before the SDS. Taken with other data, the evidence screams Barry is a front man. Groomed.

If it interests you enough, I can probably dig up my documentation to share on that. I spent a bit of time on it in 2008. Also, remember Bill has been assembling the educational curriculum for this country on the national level with the blessings of power, and he remains unpunished; or even admonished for that matter. How weird is that?

Are House's ties to the CFR and the fact of its greatly increased power in dispute? Does the Pres have more say in foreign policy; or does the CFR. A question worth asking.The link I provided was not the last word on House. Thoroughness requires digging and research. Connecting the dots. As I said, sort and weed. In support of the House quote linked, here is a purported quote by Wilson:

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/woodrow+wilson

:I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country...

Actually this quote is said to be taken from Woodrow Wilson's diary not in any speech he gave. As would be expected, absolute verification is difficult.

True or not: Take this in light of the other quotes in this link that are not in question.

Dare me?I do not dispute this conclusion. It sounds like you probably read WND, as they recently did a story on the narcissistic psychological state of the POTUS. I used to have some respect for WND; not so much any more.

"As far as you throwaway comment"You lost me on that. However,I'm sad to say, though, that the muzzling is well under way. And that I'm rapidly reaching a reluctant conclusion that there is not enough of America left to reclaim. I can not hide my disappointment; or that I grow quite weary.

Prosey,I respect your sentiments, and your delivery.There is much to be learned from House's role in the Versailles Treaty along with his affiliation with Cecil Rhodes. Note: If I remember, this line once took me to a link between House and the Rand school.

Your article stated:

"Shortly after beginning his second term, however, Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war. We may properly attribute a substantial share of the credit (or blame) for this action to House’s subtle and persistent efforts to move the president toward it during the preceding two years. "

What does that say?

That is an ok article, but slanted, incomplete, and needing more context. MSM

You said:"I am *extremely* skeptical"

understandable, and healthy. Just as I am *extremely* skeptical of all that is said to be coincidence and happenstance in the Middle East. Along with attributing all the ills of late to neo Islamists or a flim flam front man. I simply have to ask the question: Who is really pulling the strings.

Been running a high fever for a few days, so this reply has been a bit difficult for me. I'm sure quality did suffer; but I did want to acknowledge and respond.

Let us vote on validity of this definition:"Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one".How come, similarly to collaps of the Soviet Union, nobody predicted events in Tunis and conseqently anywhere else? Anybody predicting situation in Saudi Arabia, that Is the price all aim at?Roman Empire was a harsh dictatorship in a economic system based on slavery, majority of population hated. It lasted 600 years.

To Anon: That's why I said the article is a good place to *start* ~ I am brushing up on that era of history (as it relates to my studies), and to that end, I'm extremely curious about House's book (placed it on order also), because my sense is that is where his approach will be best found. I also have in my wishlist House's journals...expensive, but worth it, I think, when I get around to it. I remain skeptical (no matter which "side" political statements are made from -- and am further skeptical if I personally agree/like the sentiment, because I make a point of deliberately challenging myself/my beliefs before I presume to challenge others *nod*)...and this has proven to be a vital aspect of my own research.

SammyFriends: *laughing merrily* ~love the quote...and the entire quote goes something like, "Opinions are like assholes; everybody has one, nobody wants to see them, and they almost always reek of shit." ~ *huge grin*

The Roman Empire is a interesting case study (and has been for decades) for the direction the U.S. is going - and parallel to most of the other historically famous empires. There are plenty of people who have made (scarily accurate) predictions ... two men, different ideologies and politics as examples: Kevin Phillips and Noam Chomsky. Another example of a decent forecaster is the late Chalmers Johnson.

George: Thank you SO much for paying a visit! I need to adjust my settings to notify me of comments...I've been toying with the background settings more than anything else lately. My apologies for my use of profanity in some of my entries - I use the blog for any number of different topics...and often vent/rant there. In any case, I appreciate your visit ~ and stop by any time!

I agree, it is a good place to start. I know what I know about - at least think I do. No more and no less. I, also, never loose sight that, by law of averages, some of it is dead wrong and there is much much more that I don't know. When you get House's journals, please do share your insights.

"and am further skeptical if I personally agree/like the sentiment, because I make a point of deliberately challenging myself/my beliefs before I presume to challenge others *nod*)."

I have to say, I kinda like you. I'm absolutely flabbergasted to hear these words come from someone of your politics. By my experience.

Now I have anew experience. Just solidifies my antagonism to those confounded labels - Liberal Conservative march - Left Right.

Since all debate has an element of pontification intrinsic, I think the real test is if one is hoping to be knocked off their perch. i.e Please convince or alter my stance with truth and facts, as my first allegiance is there. By this process where I finally stand will be solid as possible.

I understand you areabout 40Femalean AtheistDo I have that right?

I'm about 50MaleI believe in a creator and the example of Christ.Married with children

I'd be interested in your views and a discussion on atheism and Christ. If you have any interest and if George does not mind. George? Not trying to convert you or anything, I would just like to get your perspective on certain information and be open to what you may present.It is possible you may change my position.Never really had a chance at honest discussion with an atheist. I know several. But never openly discussed it in fairness.

I have no problem with cross conversation, in fact, I would encourage it. My only request is that it be kept civil. I have no ability to edit people's comments, so the only option I have is to publish it or not. I try to be reasonable, and I ask for reciprocity from the readers.

Oh, and don't worry about affecting my religious outlook. I have been thinking about writing about Religion, but I am still trying to find the right words. It might become a series.

I'm about 40, yes, female, atheist (former Christian), married with children. I'm always open to discussion about this topic, so long as it doesn't delve into a theological debate (which I avoid always - because I have a high level of respect for others' faith, and challenging ideas isn't the same thing as challenging faith - the former is *good*, the latter, not so much). I also have no wish to inundate George's blog with a dialog against his wishes ~ so what I can do, if you prefer, is invite you to my own blog (linked somewhere above) and open an entry specifically for this purpose. That way, George is also welcome, but the conversation is not transpiring in a thread that has nothing to do with that topic.

To make things easier, I just opened an invitation: http://therearethornstoo.blogspot.com/2011/02/open-invitation.html :)

My only other thought here...lol...is "bear with me" because George put it just right. I changed my settings in my blog to notify me when comments come in (since my memory is sometimes goofy and I can go days forgetting to check the comments). So it may take me a bit of time to post comments...

Rodger, George lolcivility is a must.Anyone, me for instance, gets uncomfy. At anytime we can all let it go. right?I'm really trying to understand. Not out for gotcha kinda nastiness.

I guess I don't care where we talk, here offers a bit of continuity. I would not want George to feel we were abandoning him. Perhaps we can mirror on both. I will post to both now.Let me know.

I am trying to juggle many things, so please understand if the responses are slow. And my day is nearly done.

I guess that by atheist, you don't believe in an organized creator? I wonder do you consider atheism a religion? Should it be capitalized for instance. Some have that view.

What was the biggest thing, realization, event, whatever; that resulted in you reaching that conclusion?

I wonder. You say:His teachings were in no way unique. Do you think the example of Christ was unique?I know it is kinda loaded. What the heck is the definition of example. Anyway you would like to define it I guess. I would offer maybe the crucifixion.Of course what it (the crucifixion) means to you may be different if you don't buy the premise he knew of his fate.

I also, wonder what you think of this.This guy Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron ambushes people always starting with this... Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything... why then you are a liar thief blasphemer. Shame on you child ! I think this is pompous crap. You? Goto the Ray Comfort tab

Likewise, I don't want George to feel abandoned... *smile* ...I want him to know he's welcome here, especially since he has made me feel so warmly welcomed on his own page, where my viewpoints don't agree with his. That is a very good feeling, actually. *nod*

I don't mind mirroring, and as soon as I'm finished responding, I will post both here AND there, unless George would rather I not paste there. :)

An organized creator? In that, are you referring to something akin to a watchmaker?

Atheism, as a religion: There are those who self-identify as atheists who treat what they *do not* believe in as strongly as believers. In that, I can say *yes*, for *some* atheism is akin to religious belief. I do not fall into that category. I take atheism to mean *strictly* a belief in the absence of some deity, some divine ruler. This is not synonymous with an absence of belief (which is closer to agnosticism than atheism.

No, I do not believe the example of the Christ was unique. I believe that what separated his example from others was the timing of the invention of the printing press. There are many other examples of people who lived by example and taught similarly...but their places in time were prior to the Christ. If we're talking specifically about, say, crucifixion, then...well, that's a toughie for a few different reasons. Crucifixions were somewhat unique in their place in time (as we recognize the 3-point crucifixion); also, there is no formalized record of a man that many *western* people know as *the Christ* who was crucified as described (and the Romans were meticulous record-keepers).

I don't know that I buy the premise that he knew his exact fate any more than any reasonable person who knows, by definitive choice in the face of a fascist governmental regime with definitive religious overtones knows s/he might be martyred for not toeing a party line. *shrugs & smiles* Perhaps why the Beckster gets away with so much?

To the Ray tab/video...I cringed the entire time. *HEAVY sigh* So much attention is paid to *blasphemy* ~~ both in Christianity and in Islam. The religious laws are strict...as in, punishable by death...but in neither religion, actual blasphemy - in the sense of the *unforgivable sin* of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit - is defined nowhere in the Bible...or, to my knowledge, in the Quran. Again, to my knowledge. So, for me, it's one of those areas that is held onto strictly by religious leadership as a way to maintain stricture on dogmatic belief and a form of abusive control.

watchmaker -Pretty funny/, mocking aside The English language is lacking is so many ways.

What I mean is what they all like to call intelligent design.A spirit maker. A deity as you put it.When you say not the absence of belief, I assume you may gear towards holding something else exceptional; but not a deity.So the belief would be in what?

I have been through my period of agnosticism. The place I started from on my journey, from there, was the question:Did Christ walk the earth.

"no formalized record of a man"There are mountains of of historical documents - much comes down to how accurate and valid the information.

I guess then I would want to know if you believe the Nassarean from Mt. Carmel. Of the same sect as John the Baptists walked the earth. This is what the majority of the documentation says.

We have a bit of a parallel background. Child of 22 year military. Raised Catholic, hated every minute of it. Stopped church at 12.

Does it not seem funny that pretty much all the churches act/ed in ways that have made people hate them? Certainly contrary to the teaching. And yes cringing.

Intelligent design. Hmm. Then why are there SO many mistakes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6_9QmM6TfE <--this answers MUCH of my view on "intelligent design"

Agnosticism is where I went searching for the connection between the ancient and modern beliefs.

I believe there are MANY people who spoke the truth about life and love for fellow man. I do not believe the Christ was unique in that regard. Doesn't matter Nazarene from Mt. Carmel. Period. He spoke a truth.

A truth that was spoken before him. A truth that has been spoken since.

Churches behave in ways that make people hate what the *churches* choose to claim as representation.

As long time Trkkiie we need a Prime Directive. We should not interfere with the internal affairs of other countries. After all who dies and left us the police of the world. The Chineese have the technology, Manpower and weapons to do a far better job in policing the world, you don't see them sticking their nose into everybody's business? We have enough problems of our own to deal with.

We are up to our eyballs in debt wht business do have "loaning" money to other countries who neither have the intention or the capacity to pay it back? As the old saying goes Charity begins at home. We have an increasing number of own citizens going homeless, number of food stamp recepients has jumped to 14.5% of population, that is 43,500,000 people on food stamp. This is a disgrace; and we are out there shooting multimillion dollar rockets at Libiya. Who is the Fool?

The classic narcissistic tendencies are a highly inflated sense of self, a display of confidence, omnipotence, and uniqueness, such as ‘I am better than everyone else’ which may seem to portray healthy self-belief, but is really a cover for a deeply damaged self-esteem.